| |
In the real world, it can be very frustrating when, as novices, a remedy doesn't come out clearly on the repertory sheets. Yet, integrity is at stake when one gives in to an easy method, no matter what it may be. It may be the shotgun approach of prescribing everything that looks good, or it may be using one minor repertory to the exclusion of all others, but there are no shortcuts to gaining the knowledge provided only by spending hours with repertories and materia medicas.
There is a temptation to learn kinesiology (muscle testing) and other dowsing techniques to cut short the homeopathic study process in order to obtain quick results. After my investigation into those arts, I was led back to the clear thinking of Hahnemann and his followers. The framework he built with careful scientific method is still valid and can be furthered by continuing in his footsteps as others have done.
Homeopathy has already had recent news coverage that leads people to believe that there is some legerdemain going on in the research labs. Getting Randi the Magician on your case does not look good for anyone. People who find out that homeopathic practitioners use a technique like kinesiology may relegate us to the same group of people that use a Ouija board to find a doctor from the Yellow Pages.
The process usually includes a tester who places a remedy or substance in your hand and then places your hand on your chest. They ask you to hold out your other hand and resist the pressure of the tester to press it down. The first run is done without anything in your hand on your chest. That gives the tester a sense of what to expect for resistance. Then a substance is placed in your hand and if the hand loses resistance, the substance is considered bad for you. When a remedy is placed in your palm and your hand has more resistance, the remedy is considered good for you. Testers have varied ways of explaining the feedback loop of energy that increases or decreases.
I found three things to be consistently present when kinesiology was used. One thing was that there were results. There are several popular books of successful responses using kinesiology, and people have related to me their own anecdotal evidence. Even though tests were carried out without much scientific method, results were obtained: the body responded to a stimulus (the tested substance) by a pre-agreed-upon response, weakness, or strength in the muscle group used for the test. The other things always present were the person doing the testing and the muscle group that gave the tester the response.
Things which supposedly affect the outcome of the response are moist hands, clothes, the state of your mind, where you put your hand, chewing gum, fluorescent lights, high heels, crossing your legs, standing near T.V.s, and smiling. Yet people are ignorant of these elements and still get good results.
A choice has to be made as to where to put the substance being tested. People hold it in their hand, over the thymus gland, or various other places on their bodies. In fact, the tester doesn't even need to place the remedy anywhere. People have confided to me that the system works if you write the name of the substance on a piece of paper, or even if you just think about it and ask a question.
I am of the opinion that the framing of questions is fraught with error and best left alone or kept to a very basic and unassuming role. People learn the procedures of kinesiology much faster than the ability to ask questions that do not presume unknown data. I feel that the shift of professional skills towards psychologically oriented inquiries with the study of the “Three in One” system is probably due to the parlor version of diagnosis with which failure is accepted a priori and success is taken with the same attitude as winning a door prize.
Another question is which muscle to use to test the response. Although any muscle could be used if necessary, including the wrist muscle, but the deltoid muscle group is the usual choice because the extension of the arm makes the results more visible than other muscle groups. Even the muscles of the eye (by detecting the dilation of the pupil) have been used for determining the best remedy. There are no correct muscle groups to use.
In a body whose muscles all function, why use more than one muscle that would produce the best, most sensitive response? If the response were equally reactive in all muscles then the best muscle would always be the same for the same individual. However, is the one muscle the same muscle for each person? I would assume that it would be, being that the human body has similar proportions and functions from person to person. Another possibility I’m willing to entertain is that for certain data, certain muscles are more proper for testing. Then we must go to an empirical approach of listing muscles and their appropriate types of testing procedures. I would understand lengthy study for the research into this. It would be like learning iridology or another empirical diagnostic skill.
It may be surprising to learn that even the subject being tested is an expendable variable. People who were too weak to stand to do the deltoid muscle test were asked to touch another who was then tested. Testers have obtained results when another stood in for a subject who was not present. And testing yourself is also allowed.
So there remains only two constants, two pieces of the puzzle left to work with that remain consistently present during the muscle testing: the person doing the testing and the instrument (muscle group) by which the tester reads the response. This is a form of biofeedback also called medical dowsing.
Kinesiology, due to being a form of medical dowsing, is a system that has ties to too many other disrespectful forms of diagnostics and, yes, psychic practices. This disrespect is not from us who are most sincere in finding out what will help people regain their lost health, but from the public who are led by results and not by logic.
Homeopathy established itself under great pressure from the allopathic community but the public saw the results that were achieved and approved. All other forms of medicine during the mid 1800's were either merged with homeopathy or dropped out of sight.
Kinesiology still has to prove itself to the public as a worthwhile system. From the material that I have read, there hasn't been any worthwhile exponent of the practice that will serve to bring it to a respectful position in the real world. Most of the material is lacking a logical explanation of how it works. There are explanations, though, of a borderline mystical nature. They rely on assumptions that you either agree with the author about already or that don't make sense.
